"Under our [health care reform] plan, no federal dollars will be used to fund abortions." – President Obama, addressing a joint session of Congress on September 9, 2009. (link)
Obama spent most of this year repeating the above words, and he characterized anybody who said otherwise, namely Republicans, as divisive peddlers of "outrageous myths."
But, in what has become an all too familiar game of misdirection, the peddler of myths was Obama himself. The Stupak Amendment proved the dishonesty of Obama's previous words. Prior to that amendment to the House health care bill, health care subsidies (federal funds) would have been used to fund private health care plans that cover abortions. With the adoption of the Stupak Amendment, no federal funds would be used to fund abortions in any health care plan. The Stupak Amendment was adopted because that was the only way the Democrats could pass the health care bill in the House of Representatives. Without it, they were 10 votes short.
Once abortions were REALLY not covered under ObamaCare (as opposed to Obama and other Democrats only pretending they weren't covered), the debate moved to the Senate, and a firestorm erupted in the Democratic party between the pro-choice liberal wing and the pro-life moderate/conservative wing. The pro-choicers argue that the Stupak Amendment is a sea change on abortion rights, restricting federal funds that were available under the previous Hyde Amendment. And the pro-choicers seem to be right. It is a sea change. The Hyde Amendment forbids use of federal taxpayer dollars to fund Medicaid abortions except in cases of rape, incest or threat to the mother’s life, but it also allows states to use their own Medicaid money (90% of which comes from federal funds) to fund other abortions, which about 17 states currently do. The Stupak Amendment negates that federal funding, as I understand it. Please correct me if I'm wrong.
The Dems find themselves between a rock and a hard place. If the pro-life wing prevails, about 40 Democrats say they won't support the health care plan. If the pro-choice wing prevails, they lose support from the pro-lifers. In either case, the Democratic filibuster-proof majority evaporates, and with almost all Republicans against ObamaCare, the current health care reform bills could die over the abortion issue split.
In light of this dilemma, Obama seems to support the pro-choice position, even though he's making split-the-baby (no unfortunate pun intended) comments on the issue. Here's Obama saying, um, something, to ABC's Jake Tapper today:
You know, I laid out a very simple principle, which is this is a health care bill, not an abortion bill. And we're not looking to change what is the principle that has been in place for a very long time, which is federal dollars are not used to subsidize abortions.
And I want to make sure that the provision that emerges meets that test — that we are not in some way sneaking in funding for abortions, but, on the other hand, that we're not restricting women's insurance choices, because one of the pledges I made in that same speech was to say that if you're happy and satisfied with the insurance that you have, that it's not going to change.
There. Hope that clears things up. According to Obama, we're not going to have federal funding for abortions. Except when we do. I think. Or not.
{ 22 comments… read them below or add one }
I am sure that they are a few congressman that are oppossed to the Fed. Gov spending money that goes toward abortion but for others it is someting they claim they have reservations about etc. and some may even vote against funding abortion to sooth their constiutents but once the dust settles the government(tax payers) will be funding abortion. On demand abortion has always been a mainstay of the progressive movement and will not be sacrificed.
I'm with you guys! Abortion bad – death penalty good….and all those civilian deaths…just collateral damage!
and of course this is what King's republican rodeo clowns think of women……..
http://thinkprogress.org/2009/11/07/gop-gone-wild/
Thanks walt, for once again attributing beliefs to me which I do not hold.
I never imagined this trojan horse getting stuck on abortion, but the predicament is quite delicious. Now these crazy feminists are acting as if abortion is being outlawed, but the amendment specifically targets funding……………not their rights to commit murder. Just for kicks, there's another interesting pattern I can't help but notice………………….. 99.9% of these outspoken feminists would have a very hard time getting knocked up in the first place. I don't get it?? Maybe "wishful" thinking?
I'm sure the libs have a compromise on the horizon if abortion funding fails? Maybe they can fund sex-ed programs for kindergartners, push to cover gender reassignment surgeries, or whatever else will "benefit" this nation.
Federal dollars should not be used for abortions but this amendment went to far. Most democrats can agree that federal money should not be used for abortions – but this amendment limits private funds as well. So I dont think we are as divided as you think . We just need to clarify how far to go – and most do not want to go this far.
King recognizes the change in abortion policy in the Stupak amendment. I commend him for that.
Abortion is legal in America. The Hyde Amendment is an abomination. Both of those things are true. No other legal issue is singled out for prohibition other than abortion. It's shameful.
Congressional Democrats, Digby says, are self-loathers…..knowing that they are doing good by passing health care reform, yet self-hating enough (because conservatives tell them they are evil) to cave to anti-American conservatives on abortion in that reform. I think Digby is on to something.
Alex…stay classy.
I don't understand people who can't wrap their minds around the idea of someone who opposes abortion and the death penalty. Tbomb, we do exist, probably more of us than you are aware of. It is my opinion that only God can decide who should live and who should die, abortion shouldn't be a consideration, even in cases of incest, rape or mom's life in danger. But that's me, and I know I already don't fit in your stereotypes, lol.
Since I object to abortion on moral grounds, I don't want to be required to pay taxes that will fund what I consider an immoral act. Rev. Wright, please understand that there are many Democratic voters who feel the same way I do about abortion. In fact, I went to college with quite a few Liberals who oppose abortion, because they understand that a fetus is, in fact, another human being. Maybe Congressional Dems realize that they can't please everyone in this particular instance and are going for compromise? That's not self-loathing. That's self-preservation.
Try to Rev, but have a real hard time recognizing a "right" when it is founded by ignoring the rights of another? A pregnant woman is murdered and the accused is convicted of (2) counts of homicide?? Based on the double and triple standards that exist, I can only gather that the recognition of "life" is contingent upon the intention of the mother? Parents are held responsible for their childs welfare until the age of 18, yet pro-abortion extremists oppose parental consent for minors and/or any sort of preliminary counseling? Does this not violate our rights as parents?
Abortions will go on, but it is a shame that the father has no say when it comes to the termination of their DNA. Eggs are implanted within surrogates, yet they still remain the property of the genetic owner. This whole "my body my choice" mentality is a piece of garbage. The same individuals crying about the government taking control of their bodies are also proponents of the government taking over ours? Is something wrong with this picture?
Aside from all the "technicalities", I'm really enjoying the show. The Democrats claim the RNC is in disarray and, at the same time, their party is being shredded from within while the controlling fringe elements battle the moderates on the issue of abortion. I'm tellin' you, both parties are a complete wreck and I can't wait to donate next year………………….to each individual candidate who stands for something besides the establishment, even out of state ones. Money talks and I'm not letting the RNC speak for me.
Was that classy enough for you, Rev?
Well done, Alex.
I respect opposing views. Everyone is entitled. If conservatives want to end abortion….then have at it. Until then….it's legal and a woman's choice.
If an underage girl is violated by her father…which, sadly, happens…..and she is impregnated, should abortion law require that girl to tell her rapist father? I don't think so. And do you believe for one second that if a man carried the child, not the woman, that men would equally consider what the woman wanted?
The RNC IS in disarray and now there's the TeaPartiers to deal with…good luck with that. The Democrats big mistake came during Clinton when they allowed big corporations to dictate policy. Now, it's even worse…..banksters, insurance, big pharma, etc.
To both Tory and Alex….the Democratic Party operates with a large tent. The GOP does not, and it's getting smaller. The Democratic Party actually represents all of America within it's ranks. While the GOP eliminates candidates from consideration who are pro-choice (ex: Tom Ridge)…Democrats have many candidates and serving representatives who are pro-life.
Tory…" I don't want to be required to pay taxes that will fund what I consider an immoral act."
How about subsidized insurance that just might cover abortion?
Why should anti-choicers get their way about tax dollars for abortion…when no other American can deny their tax dollars for corporate welfare, invading non-threatening countries and killing innocent people?
While you did respond to Tbomb…..you didn't explain how being anti-choice and pro-death penalty, simultaneously, is consistent. If only god can decide…then only god can decide….I mean, right?
If a girl is impregnated by her father she should go to the mother or the authorities, Reverend. A no-questions-asked abortion only keeps the whole thing under the radar.
I don't understand your question, Rev. I'll explain my point of view once more, in a bit more detail for you, maybe that will help you understand what I'm saying.
Number one, I'm not 'anti-choice', I just don't believe that the mother of a child has the right to ever decide to kill that child. EVER. It's like your neighbor deciding that he wants to expand his house onto your lot, then coming into your bedroom at night with a power saw to rip you apart, so he can knock down your house. I believe that the child is a person, not a 'choice'. Abortion is far crueler than drowning a sack of unwanted puppies, because I value human life above all other forms of life.
I can't explain to you why being anti-abortion is compatible with being pro death penalty, because, as I said, I oppose both abortion and the death penalty. Who lives and who dies is not my choice; that's God's choice, and I'm not into doing his job for him.
About my tax dollars being used for warfare, you don't seem to make a moral distinction between killing an innocent, unborn child and killing someone who is holding a gun trying to kill you. (The Commandment is "Thou shalt not murder," which is decidedly different than the war scenario.) I do personally object to my tax dollars being used for corporate welfare, so your point there is moot. Way to read my mind incorrectly on that count.
And I agree with larry d. Do you know how many cases of rape and incest are covered up by a Planned Parenthood visit? http://www.protectcincinnati.org/ProtectLawsuits.html How many guys who belong in prison are out there preying on more victims because an abortion clinic neatly disposed of the evidence for them?
Alex,
You brought up a good point that I never considered before. If a person has a right to do what they want with their body, up to killing a fetus, then how can the government have the right to force people to purchase health insurance or be fined or imprisoned ? That is also the government denying a person's choice, and is inconsistent. I'd like to hear one of our Dems address this.
For the record, I'm against forcing people to buy health insurance, and am grudgingly pro-choice, even though I think abortion is immoral (I admit my position on abortion is schizophrenic).
But watching the Democrats twist in the wind over this is fun, isn't it ?
And did I really hear the Reverend say he respects opposing views ? lol. That's definitely not the impression one gets from reading the Blog Of Mass Name-Calling.
Tory,
The polling seems to indicate Americans are becoming more pro-life in recent years, as they come to realize what an abortion actually is via sonograms and such.
http://www.pollingreport.com/abortion.htm
I used to be pro-abortion, but I realized how horrible abortion was after I became a Christian and prayed for God to show me. Watch this video if you think abortion isn't killing another human being. http://www.abortiontv.com/Movies/hardtruth.htm
Rev: To both Tory and Alex….the Democratic Party operates with a large tent. The GOP does not, and it's getting smaller. The Democratic Party actually represents all of America within it's ranks.
????? The same big tent which is controlled by it's 20% radical minority? Rev, I think you're trying to get us all on the government dole? Both systems are flawed and we must now think outside the box.
King: then how can the government have the right to force people to purchase health insurance or be fined or imprisoned
This may be the trump card which sets up a showdown for the legality of such force-feeding?
Tory,
I can't argue with you. I actually do think abortion is killing another human being, especially with later term abortions. I admit my pro-choice position is schizophrenic and hypocritical, but I still wouldn't want to outlaw abortion, putting it in back alleys like it used to be. I'd really like to find another way to bring the number of abortions down to virtual zero. I don't think Roe v. Wade will ever be reversed in this country. Even when the GOP had Bush as President and controlled Congress, they didn't even try to do it.
Alex,
The government shouldn't have that right. If they get away with this, they can get away with anything.
Rev: If an underage girl is violated by her father…which, sadly, happens…..and she is impregnated, should abortion law require that girl to tell her rapist father? I don't think so. And do you believe for one second that if a man carried the child, not the woman, that men would equally consider what the woman wanted?
Rather than find the merit in an observation which encompasses 99% of the instances, you searched for a scenario which affects less than 1%.
If a girl is raped by her father, she should confide in a trusted source and allow the legal system to run it's course. Then poppa needs to get whats comin'. (You knew this though)
Not sure about males carrying babies, but Oprah did have a pregnant man on her show. Male seahorses also carry eggs to term. Can't really make the call, whether I would consider the baby a "punishment".
Alex…..If it's true that the Democrats are controlled by what you call, "it's 20% radical minority"….then please tell me why it is that single payer was entirely absent from Congressional health care reform?
And about the 99% stuff……60% of the nation is white, does that mean that laws should be written to please that 60%, because, you know, they're the majority.
Tory…how do you know it was god who showed you something? How?